Re: is there any Hard-disk shock-protection for 2.6.18 and above?

[Pavel Machek]

Hi1

> >> >> +module_param_named(protect_method, libata_protect_method, int, 0444);
> >> >> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(protect_method, "hdaps disk protection method  (0=autodetect, 1=unload, 2=standby)");
> >> >
> >> > Should this be configurable by module parameter? Why not tell each
> >> > unload what to do?
> [...]
> >> > Is /sys interface right thing to do?
> >> 
> >> Probably, you're right here. Since this feature is actually drive
> >> specific, it should not really be set globally as a libata or ide-disk
> >> parameter but specifically for each drive connected. Perhaps we should
> >> add another attribute to /sys/block/*/queue or enhance the scope of
> >> /sys/block/*/queue/protect?
> >
> > Certainly better than current solution. Or maybe ioctl similar to wat
> > hdparm uses?
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you have in mind wrt ioctls. I'm still
> convinced that the administrator should take a conscious decision when
> forcing an idle immediate with unload feature on a drive which doesn't
> announce this capability according to the specs. This is because I
> have no idea as to how drives might react if they don't support it.
> Perhaps we should consult linux-ide on this topic.

Yep, I guess linux-ide would have some comments.

> So, here is a patch in which your remarks and suggestions have been
> incorporated. Additionally, I've added the requested kernel doc file

Additional suggestion is to keep lines < 80 columns.... Sorry it took
me so long to comment.
								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/